Step Stately ~ Old Style Progression, 7 Couple

This dance appeared first in the Lovelace Manuscript, but the instructions for it are incomplete.

This dance needs more room between sets than most.

Playford (and Sharp) say this can be done for 3, 5, 7 or 9 couples. Lovelace's incomplete description probably only works for 3 couples. This is a 7 couple version. Colin Hume recommends 5 couples. Personally I worry that with 7 couples the first part will involve too much travel to finish in the limited amount of time. The third part also presents difficulties which I shall discuss later.

Lovelace writes:

Leade up, and downe agayne then the man and woeman slip between each other, the man above the woeman then the first man shall leade soe round about to the bottome holding the other man by the hand and his woeman doeing the like at the same time, then they all shall leade upwards, in the shape of an halfe moone, and downe againe then the 3 woemen quitting of the 3 men shall slide upwards towards the right hand, and the men towards the left, and soe they are all in their places;

The first couple shall leade upwards, and the second downwards, the last couple standing still, and then turne about, and leade each to other, and then take hands, and goe rounde — (the dance's instructions are terminated by the bottom of the page and do not resume on the next)

Playford writes:

Lead up all a D. change places each with his own, keeping your races still to the Presence, the men slipping behind the we. and the we before the ment, face all to the wall Men hands, and we. hands, 1 man and 2. wo. lead all the rest round to the bottom facing all to the Presence	The first man and wo. being in the middle, lead up all abreast a D. and back We. slip before the men to the right, and men behind the we. to the left going a compass to their places as at first
The first cu. lead up a D. change hands and lead down a D. Take hands with the 2. cu. and all four half round, 1. man and 2. wo. change places	The 2 we lead up between the 2 men, then crossing over, the 1. wo. go behind the 2. man, and the 2. behind the 1. Men change over by the right hands, then giving left hands to their own we. turn the 1. cu. into the 2. place, and the 2. into the 1.
First cu. cross over, meet in the 2. place, change places The three uppermost men and the three we. hands, fall a D. back, 2. and 3. cu. change each with his own while the 1. cu. meet, then fall a D. back again three and three	Now standing as in Greenwood, the 1 man between the 2 and 3. wo. and the 1. wo. between the 2. and 3. man, the 1 cu. lead up, cast off and meet below whilst the 2. and 3. we and the 2. and 3. men change places The 1. cu. being in the 3. place, arms, whilst the other four take hands and go half round to the left

Note that Lovelace's description matches Playford's for the first part of the dance. However Lovelace's second paragraph does not seem to match either of Playford's other parts. It might describe a two couple dance in a three couple set (as the RSCDS would say), but there is too little of it to be certain.

In the third part we have what appears to be a double progression triple minor; now this permutation also works for progression in a 3 couple longways set. Sharp uses this.

Colin Hume shows it works well as a three couple dance in a five couple set.

In this part of Step Stately with 3 and 5 couples there is never any ambiguity about who should be dancing. But when we come to 7... after two iterations of the dance there are 4 couples out at the top. Now there are three possibilities:

0. No one starts to dance at the top when there are 4 couples out. Instead they wait for the 1s to reach the bottom, and then the top couple starts. Essentially a whole set dance with only one active couple at a time. Each iteration of the music puts the 1s two places further down the set, so given that they start in 1st place they will end up progressively in 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th places just as Playford says. And presuably 11th or 13th if anyone wanted to try it.
1. The top couple starts dancing when there are 4 couples out at the top. This is what you would expect... but it has the drawback that the 4th couple down is not part of any set. In the 19th century triple minors were usually danced with an inactive couple between every set, but I don't think anyone was doing that in 1651. Or you could think of the dance as a quadruple minor (yes, there were some, but not until 1716) with the 4s inactive.

   But the problem with this approach is that a double progression quadruple minor can also be made to work with 6 couples or 8. There's nothing to restrict it to 5, 7 or 9 so I think it is safe to say this is not what Playford intended.

   It also seems unlikely that Playford would have all minor sets start at once (as a modern quadruple minor would).

2. The second couple from the top could start dancing when there are four couples out at top. This is unexpected, but it works and produces a triple minor set. But as with the previous case there is nothing special about 7 or 9 couples. This will work with 6 or 8 as well. So is not what Playford had in mind either.

   In a double progression triple minor, if there are two couples out at the top they should trade places, and if there are two out at the bottom, they should as well. Double progression triple minors were explored in US Contra Dancing in the 1970s or so, but I know of none before then.